Posted on 10/06/2016 1:22:28 AM PDT by detective
So how, specifically, would you deal with the people who won’t buy insurance until they need it?
Deporting upwards of 30 million illegal/invaders/occupiers is a good start in the right direction.
We are providing healthcare for MILLIONS of people who should not be here in the first place.
Catastophic insurance is not nearly as expensive. An employer could offer it as part of workers benefits.
True. But that doesn’t answer the question I posed to the other poster.
I think the uninsurable angle has warped the system forever. You can’t fix this anymore. Just by canceling the Obama system, then you have all the uninsurables standing there again, with no method of getting insurance, which congress will refuse (GOP included) dump them.
My brother brought this up during the week. Local guy from where I grew up....early 50’s...unemployed for at least five or six years....no insurance (note that in particular)...and diagnosed in the past ten days with serious cancer. Hospital already spent in range of $15,000 on guy to this point and they want him to exit the hospital and try to pay some part of the money.
The guy isn’t that bright, and should have signed up for the ObamaCare package back four years ago. Never did. So my brother suggested that the relatives go and get him registered now (ASAP) and at least all bills from this point on will be covered. It’ll cost him virtually nothing because he’s not making anything but welfare.
I have doubts that any of this current program will be around in three years. But it’ll just evolve to some other freakish health care program.
Regardless of the lack of what the past system and social backup structure had before, what we have now is infinitely worse. And despite all the hard luck stories out there, we as a nation are headed for catastrophe if it (ACA) continues.
This person you cite is likely already on Medicaid, or would be put on it if he does get signed up because he can’t afford anything. The benefit he will receive either way will end up being the same.
Eliminating “to Save Obamacare” would make the headline more accurate.
“So how, specifically, would you deal with the people who won’t buy insurance until they need it?”
There are three options:
1) Do nothing. They will fully deplete their financial resources, beg from relatives and charity, and ultimately live with the consequences of financial ruin. This is the ultimate in personal accountability.
2) Go to a single payer system (Medicare for all) where everyone pays a tax for government provided Medicare. Everyone pays into the system.
3) Do what we do now. Try to compel everyone to buy insurance. However some will disobey the law and not pay. When they show up at the hospital emergency room they will be treated, whether or not they have the money (or insurance) to pay.
Very few politicians will be elected or reelected supporting #1. Too many voters make political decision based on emotions.
I agree. I note that we do not have a “food care plan” or a “shelter care plan.” We look to individuals to provide for themselves.
Your Official FR “well.....DUH!” Story of the Day!
Just curious, which of the three do you prefer?
That headline is a riot. Hell, the obama administration is willing, ready and able, for that matter, to do anything to break the law. It is not limited to saving obamacare.
“Just curious, which of the three do you prefer?”
None of the above. However, option #1 is most efficient economically and fairest for the greatest number of people so I would go with #1. In addition it promotes personal responsibility, which in turns supports individual liberty.
As to healthcare reform there is no simple repeal of Obamacare and going pack to some mythical free market system. The system in place at the time Obamacare was passed was not free market. It was highly regulated with much government regulation and many government subsidies. There was no national market for insurance. Plus those associated with groups (employer plans, union plans) had significant advantages cost advantages due to their ability to negotiate with the purchasing power of a group, while independent citizens in the private market had limited and extremely expensive options. Finally, prices were not transparent which further reduced the ability of the consumer of services to negotiate or price compare.
I’d like to see:
1) A national market. Give insurers the opportunity to offer a variety of choices nationally. End state by state regulation.
2) Require providers to post “list” prices. Consumers can the compare providers, just as consumers compare automobiles and housing. Allow consumers to negotiate discounts from list price.
3) Eliminate “group” insurance. Let employers provide vouchers to employees to be used in purchasing insurance in the private market. The same with government plans such as Medicaid and Medicare. They should be voucher plans.
UnitedHealth Just Got Sued for Overcharging on Prescription Drugs
Kristen Bahler @kristenbahler October 6, 2016
According to a lawsuit from three customers.
If you’ve been waiting for some good news from the prescription drug world, you’ll have to look elsewhere.
UnitedHealth Group, the largest health insurer in the country, has been sued by customers who claim the company secretly overcharged them for prescription drugs, Reuters reports.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Minnesota, three UnitedHealth customers claim they made co-payments for drugs that were more expensive than the actual cost of the drugs — and UnitedHealth pocketed the difference. The lawsuit uses the contraceptive Sprintec as an example, for which one member allegedly paid $50, while UnitedHealth only paid the pharmacy $11.65 — keeping the extra $38.85. While this was billed as a “co-payment,” the transaction is actually a “hidden additional premium,” the lawsuit claims.
http://time.com/money/4520981/unitedhealth-lawsuit-prescription-drugs/
They were willing to violate the Constitution to enact it.
What makes anyone think these DNC scumbags wouldn’t even kill if ultimately that’s what it took to get their way?
It was the fact that most people had health insurance that drove up medical costs to obscene levels in the first place. Otherwise the market would have kept medical care affordable. Well, actually that and the ease in suing doctors, thus forcing them to carry expensive liability coverage.
Food and shelter is still on somewhat reasonable expense levels and does not totally bankrupt a family to obtain. Also it is reasonable to assume that people can exist with different levels of food and shelter, meaning one does not have to have a high-end house or eat High-end food to live. Whereas one does still need the high end medical equipment and drugs to live through a desease or injury.
It was the government's interference that drove up medical care to a level that no one can afford it on their own.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.